The question of the removability of inquisitors was one which bore directly upon their subordination or independence, and was the subject of much conflicting legislation. When the power of appointment was first conferred upon the provincials it carried with it authority to remove and replace them after consultation with discreet brethren; and in 1244 Innocent IV. declared that the provincials and generals of the Mendicant Orders had full power to remove, revoke, supersede, and transfer all members of their orders serving as inquisitors, even when commissioned by the pope. Some ten years later the vacillating policy of Alexander IV. indicates an earnest effort on the part of the inquisitors to obtain independence. In 1256 he asserted the removing power of the provincials; July 5, 1257, he withdrew their power, and December 9, of the same year, he reaffirmed it in his bull Quod super nonnullis, which was repeatedly reissued by himself and his successors. Later popes issued conflicting orders, until at length Boniface VIII. decided in favor of the removing power ; but the inquisitors claimed that it could only be exercised for cause and after due trial, which practically reduced it to a nullity. It is true that in the reformatory effort of Clement V. ipso facto excommunication, removable only by the pope, was provided for three crimes of inquisitors — falsely prosecuting or neglecting to prosecute for favor, enmity, or profit, for extorting money, and for confiscating church property for the offence of a clerk — but these provisions, although they called forth the earnest protest of Bernard Gui, only amounted to a declaration of what was desirable, and were of no practical effect.[1]
- ↑ Coll. Doat, XXXI. 73 ; XXXH. 15, 105.— Alex. PP. IV. Bull. Odare suam, 13
1245 (Coll. Doat, XXXI. 70).— Berger, Registres d'Innoc. IV. No. 1963.— Ripoll 1. 132 ; II. 594, 610, 644.— Alex. PP. IV. Bull. TJt negotium, 5 Mart. 1261.— Urbani
PP. IV. Bull, m negotium, 4 Aug. 1262.— Mag. Bull. Roman. 1. 116, 120, 126, 139, 267, 420.— C. 10 Sexto v. 2.— Potthast No. 13057, 183&9, 18419, 19559.— Bern. Guidon. Practica P. iv. (Doat, XXX.).— Eymeric. Direct. Inquis. pp. 136, 137.
It is curious that the question whether the commission of an inquisitor did not expire with the death of the appointing pope was still considered in doubt as late as 1290, when it was settled in favor of permanence by Nicholas IV. in the bull We aliqui (Potthast No. 23302). In the earlier period Alexander IV. shortly after his accession, in 1255, considered it necessary to renew the commission of even so distinguished an inquisitor as Rainerio Saccone (Ripoll I.
275).
